MMR

Stiofain2006

Our son is just over 2 years old. He has not had is MMR injection yet. He is fighting fit. Thinking of getting it now. Are there any side effects just after getting it. Are there any other parents out there that have refrained from giving the MMR vaccine to their child? My wife did not want to give it to our son because she said the swine flu jab was part of it back there a while ago when there was that general scare and she did not want him to have the swine flu jab.

Lola92

Stiofain2006 wrote: »

Our son is just over 2 years old. He has not had is MMR injection yet. He is fighting fit. Thinking of getting it now. Are there any side effects just after getting it. Are there any other parents out there that have refrained from giving the MMR vaccine to their child? My wife did not want to give it to our son because she said the swine flu jab was part of it back there a while ago when there was that general scare and she did not want him to have the swine flu jab.

My daughter is 16 months and had her first MMR at 12 months. This did not include the swine flu jab. As far as I know this is now included in the general flu vaccine, although it is possible that you can ask your gp to source a regular flu vaccine without the swine flu one included.

To be honest I had never even heard of the MMR containing swine flu but the practise nurse told me all it was was the MMR & PCV when she was a year old.

How Strange

My son had it a couple of months ago and it's what Lola92 said; MMR and PCV. The swine flu vaccine is not included.

January

From Parenting

N8

Stiofain2006 wrote: »

Our son is just over 2 years old. He has not had is MMR injection yet. He is fighting fit.

sorry but why bother then?

Nonoperational

N8 wrote: »

sorry but why bother then?

Why bother have the MMR because the child is not sick now? Do your self a favour and look up the definition of immunisation.

The MMR is incredibly safe and protects against some nasty diseases that could cause serious long term problems down the road.

N8

gpf101 wrote: »

Why bother have the MMR because the child is not sick now? Do your self a favour and look up the definition of immunisation.

No need thank you.

gpf101 wrote: »

The MMR is incredibly safe and protects against some nasty diseases that could cause serious long term problems down the road.

With respect do yourself a favour and read a bit wider around the subject.

Rather this than coming on an open forum and jumping up and down when the OP is asked a genuine question.

locum-motion

N8 wrote: »

sorry but why bother then?

Mmmmm.....

Maybe because if - in the future - he is sharing a house with someone who catches measles, then he'll have a 90% chance of catching it himself.

Maybe because an attack of mumps as an adult will possibly leave him unable to have kids of his own?

Or maybe because he might catch rubella as an adult, and pass it on to his wife, who might then have a baby with no fingers.


Seriously, the other poster was dead right; if you think him being well now is a reason not to vaccinate, then you really don't understand what vaccination is.

N8

Sorry locum motion the OP has obviously delayed the MMR vaccination and now feels she may do so now at a later stage than recommended – I am asking why bother now and not then?

But when you are on the subject - the chances of a healthy person catching the measles in a house from another healthy person is slim to none is it not? Hardly 90%?

Also there is every chance is there not of either the infection being atypical measles or a time evolved version of the measles used to make the original measles virus within simian kidney tissue for the vaccination?

What of the residual cellular material in the vaccine from aborted foetal cell lines used to culture the rubella virus – is there an issue of human DNA contamination from rubella cultured off aborted foetal tissue and DNA contamination?

(Foetal tissue being the preferred choice for many vaccinologists as it avoids potential contamination with animal diseases and cross-transfer of animal DNA into humans.)

What are the rates of mumps and rubella in adult populations of unvaccinated and indeed vaccinated males?


Back to the OP and I’ll rephrase my question so everyone can calm down: OP given the age of your child you took the decision to delayed the recommended time to vaccinate your child with the MMR vaccination - why bother now and not then?

Lola92

N8 wrote: »

Back to the OP and I’ll rephrase my question so everyone can calm down: OP given the age of your child you took the decision to delayed the recommended time to vaccinate your child with the MMR vaccination - why bother now and not then?

Stiofain2006 wrote: »

Our son is just over 2 years old. He has not had is MMR injection yet. He is fighting fit. Thinking of getting it now. Are there any side effects just after getting it. Are there any other parents out there that have refrained from giving the MMR vaccine to their child? My wife did not want to give it to our son because she said the swine flu jab was part of it back there a while ago when there was that general scare and she did not want him to have the swine flu jab.

The swine flu jab I am guessing from the OP?

opinion guy

Meanwhile, in the news in Ing-er-land just today:

BBC wrote:

More than 200 cases of measles have been confirmed on Merseyside in the largest outbreak since 1988, the Health Protection Agency has said.

Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-17912457

OldNotWIse

Cue another endless "tree-hugger" Vs "evil pharma supporters" rant... :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

N8 wrote: »

sorry but why bother then?

A vaccination is like an insurance against possible future illness. It is not a "treatment" for a existing illness, hence a child's good health is not a deciding factor in the administration of a vaccine, regardless of divided opinions on effectiveness/side effects.

GradMed

Hi Stiofain2006.
Missing a scheduled vaccination, for whatever reason, is a common enough occurrence. If you and and your partner choose to get the vaccination just drop down to your GP. You can discuss any concerns you have and a catch up vaccination can be given or scheduled. Should you have any further questions regarding vaccinations as your child grows up your GP will be more than happy to answer your questions.

This site gives a very good overview of the MMR
http://www.immunisation.ie/en/ChildhoodImmunisation/VaccinePreventableDiseases/MMR/

As a quick summary, the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh any potential risk.

I'll reproduce some of the information here

It lists the common and uncommon side effects of the vaccination and it lists what can occur if a child is unvaccinated and becomes infected with measles, mumps and rubella.

post vaccination side effects:

• 1 in 10 will have discomfort, redness or swelling where the injection was given, or will have a fever;
• 1 in 20 will get a rash six to 12 days later(this is not contagious);
• 1 in 20 get swollen glands, a stiff neck, or joint pains;
• 1 in 100 may develop swelling of the salivary glands under the jaw;
• 1 in 1000 will have a convulsion (fit);
• 1 in 22,000 will get a temporary blood clotting problem / bruising or bleeding
• 1 in 1,000,000 may get encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).

Of note is the risk, one in a million of an inflammation of the brain, a serious condition and can fatal. The risk of developing an inflammation of the brain if you get measles is 1 in 1000, a thousand times more likely.
Vaccines are safe,their benefits greatly outweigh any risks and are a cornerstone of modern medicine which save countless lives each year.

On a slightly related note there was a wonderful program on BBC2 recently called mission cold chain with Ewan McGregor. It details the struggle of giving vaccinations in remote areas.

locum-motion

N8 wrote: »

...But when you are on the subject - the chances of a healthy person catching the measles in a house from another healthy person is slim to none is it not? Hardly 90%?
...

Now, I do realise that Wikipedia can be wrong, but this is what it has to say on the subject:

"Measles (also sometimes known as English Measles) is spread through respiration (contact with fluids from an infected person's nose and mouth, either directly or through aerosol transmission), and is highly contagious—90% of people without immunity sharing living space with an infected person will catch it. "

Nonoperational

N8 wrote: »

No need thank you.




With respect do yourself a favour and read a bit wider around the subject.

Rather this than coming on an open forum and jumping up and down when the OP is asked a genuine question.

I've done plenty of reading about the MMR and vaccinations. You can dress it up anyway you want with any conspiracy theory you like but at the end of the day the considered advice of the medical community is that vaccinating is safer and better than not. Of course there are tiny risks of complications. But they are less than the risk of not vaccinating.

I didn't jump up and down and the OPs question at all. I jumped up and down at your response. It displayed complete lack of knowledge on the whole point of vaccinations and it's pretty terrible advice to be giving to anyone. If a parent doesn't want to vaccinate a child I'll disagree with them and advise them of the facts. But at the end of the day it's their call. On the other hand simply replying to the question of vaccination with a response implying there's no point in vaccinating because they're not sick now... that I find difficult to leave unchallenged.

Delancey

An earlier post in this thread has picqued my interest - is it true that tissue from aborted foetuses is used in the production of some vaccines ?

locum-motion

Delancey wrote: »

An earlier post in this thread has picqued my interest - is it true that tissue from aborted foetuses is used in the production of some vaccines ?

Perfectly honestly, I don't know.

But the poster who said that has a long history of being something of a conspiracy theorist. I'd take a lot of what N8 says with a pinch of salt.

Delancey

locum-motion wrote: »

Perfectly honestly, I don't know.

But the poster who said that has a long history of being something of a conspiracy theorist. I'd take a lot of what N8 says with a pinch of salt.

Ah , alright so - I would have thought if that was the case then it would pose all manner of ethical issues particularly for medical professionals working in church run hospitals , I can't imagine the Mater in Dublin ( for example ) being happy with vaccines produced in that way. Cheers

Nonoperational

I think originally some diploid cells were harvested from embryos. These were used to create cell lines that are used to produce certain types of vaccines. The cell lines were obtained from legal abortions and the abortions were not originally to provide these cells. The cell lines are immortal and so it's still the same cell lines that were arond 40/50 years ago. As far as I know there were 3 foetuses used and that's it. You don't need a continuous supply or anything like that.
I'm not an expert on immunology or anything so I'm open to correction, but it's actually quite interesting.

Dave!

On fetuses...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-other-anti-vaccinationists/

Some vaccines culture the attenuated virus in human diploid cell lines that were derived from aborted fetuses. There are currently two such human cell lines in use: the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts developed in 1964, and MRC-5 first cultured in 1970. So each cell line is over 40 years old. Further, the cells themselves are not part of the vaccine. Viruses are cultured in these cell lines.

Viruses are cultured in cell lines derived from fetuses 40 years ago. Fairly far removed from the suggestion coming from many in the anti-vaccination camp! But yes I gather human fetuses were involved in some way in the process. Doesn't bother me, might bother others.

N8

N8 wrote: »

Rather this than coming on an open forum and jumping up and down when the OP is asked a genuine question.

If you're referring to the autism myth, that's been debunked for a long time.

Delancey

Very interesting link Dave! , I was not aware that the seemingly unconnected matter of vaccination had become a ' battlefield ' in the abortion debate.

Dave!

I'm not sure I'd characterise it that way really. Rather than as a moral matter, the references to aborted fetuses are generally (as far as I can see from following the 'debate') used in the context of "look at all the nasty stuff that's in those vaccines!"

They usually rattle off a whole bunch of ingredients which sound pretty scary if you don't know what they are, or if you're inclined towards 'naturalistic' thinking and don't like taking anything which isn't sold in Holland and Barrett. Of course, they neglect to point out that toxicity is dose-dependent in most chemicals, so while botulinum toxin would probably kill you if taken intravenously, in low doses it can make skin look nice and smooth The main thing I'd be concerned about in vaccines is dihydrogen monoxide :eek: H2O... Water...

N8

locum-motion wrote: »

I'd take a lot of what N8 says with a pinch of salt.

locum-motion

N8 wrote: »

Yah, I think I'll go with Dave!'s interpretation, not yours, thanks.
And I'll continue to keep the salt cellar handy when I read your posts.

OP - after all things considered , have you decided to get your child vaccinated with the MMR?

N8

locum-motion wrote: »

Yah, I think I'll go with Dave!'s interpretation, not yours, thanks.

locum-motion wrote: »

And I'll continue to keep the salt cellar handy when I read your posts.

sam34

and we're done here